This is a document, print and local-tool simulation, not a classroom, accessibility, equipment or funder trial. I followed the clocks, recalculated the learner tasks and checks, ran the denominator calculation for all/selected/empty groups, rendered all five A4 PDFs and visually inspected their page layouts. No outside participant used the materials.
Teacher use
The first four sessions build one continuous routine: define the counted unit and paper-only criterion, separate source method from missing method, rebuild the 48-tile register, then correct the card's 23/36 subgroup framing. The normal daily clock is 3+7+12+8+5=35 minutes; both check days are 3+5+12+10+5=35. The method mat makes NOT OBSERVED prominent, and the teacher key has a misconception-specific response per day. Source packet and print aids can be queued before Day 11. A teacher may need to shorten peer discussion in a large group; the three routes and one short exit preserve a runnable core. That pacing judgement remains untested with real learners.
Learner use
I rebuilt Source B in two directions: pass 14+9+2=25, redraw 4+9+10=23, all 48; rows 18+18+12=48. Hatch/Ring alone gives 23/36≈63.9%, while all gives 25/48≈52.1%. The category filter returns those outputs without editing a source cell; its paper route gives the same result using labelled frames. In Check A, Grid+Arc gives 18/27=66.7%, versus full 20/35≈57.1%. In Check B, Tall+Square gives 14/24≈58.3%, versus full 15/32≈46.9%. A learner who gets a correct subgroup percentage but calls it “all” receives a scope next step, not a generic arithmetic failure. These are my calculations, not observed student responses.
Potential funder/release use
The official workbook SHA, exact row/level/wording and limits are visible in the crosswalk. Original fictional source texts, five vector page designs and offline code have explicit separate rights; no paid worksheet, photo, logo, unreviewed cultural source or real-person dataset is needed. The public-key status is explicit, so the checks are honest practice evidence, not secure examinations. This is an inspectable ten-day integrated supplement; neither full Year 10 coverage nor classroom effect follows from it.
Visual/tool review
- I rendered all five A4 PDFs and viewed a contact sheet. Blank work cells and two-panel writing space remain within page edges. The deliberately misleading “64%” panel is visibly marked as a fictional teaching source beside a full-register layout; its small caption is still legible at print size.
- Text extraction retains the key numbers, category names, model/record limits and
NOT OBSERVED. SVGs contain title/description and PDFs embed DejaVu text. The text alternative explains every layout's hierarchy and a tactile adaptation route; standard files are not Braille or raised print. - The offline filter's pure calculation was exercised for all (25/48, 52.1%), Hatch+Ring (23/36, 63.9%), Solid (2/12, 16.7%) and empty selection (no denominator). It changes scope, not data; paper cards are equivalent for this maths question. The in-app browser surface was unavailable during this desk run, so live click and assistive-technology behaviour were not observed; the HTML controls and labels were inspected statically. A browser/user trial remains open.
Open review
An Australian classroom teacher should trial timing and adaptations, and a curriculum reviewer should assess fuller Year 10 and local sequencing. Any real visual-access, environmental, safety or visitor claim requires a separate authorised study. No such outcome is supplied or implied here.